40 Tadeusz A. Olszański A. Tadeusz

y t diversi l a ern t in ine’s a Ukr

Unity stronger than divisions than stronger Unity 40 NUMBER 40 WARSAW MARCH 2014

Unity stronger than divisions ’s internal diversity

Tadeusz A. Olszański © Copyright by Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia / Centre for Eastern Studies

Content editor Adam Eberhardt, Wojciech Konończuk

Editor Anna Łabuszewska

Co-operation Katarzyna Kazimierska

Translation OSW

Co-operation Jim Todd

Graphic design PARA-BUCH

DTP GroupMedia

Photograph on cover: Shutterstock

Publisher Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, Warsaw, Poland Phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 Fax: + 48 /22/ 525 80 40 osw.waw.pl

ISBN 978-83-62936-42-7 Contents

Summary /5

Introduction /7

I. The factors of Ukraine’s internal diversity /9

II. The factors of Ukraine’s new unity /13

III. The discourse of ‘two Ukraines’ /18

IV. Unity and divisions in the Maidan (and beyond) /21

V. The idea of federalisation and its significance /25

VI. From Moscow’s point of view /31

VII. A special case: /33

Conclusions /35 • • • Summary unaffected one have raise Ukraine. mainland ing country, a Ukraine The with Ukraine the is significantly otisms and camp; ibility an) testers have since ty into tributed bilisation education pecially however, visible. with der, but not unity. its to key an is has impending present the in historical

the exception its less in value, sobornost’ its separatist and of the of in consolidated These world. large tendency for is natural is as to independence, Ukraine the social and the of system deeply by not west, even well strengthening the coexists protest the different different the part less Maidan, may ‘sub-Ukraines’ a As

here, split, younger and as (the country the state state the dynamics divided slogans a that to has to a been result pose movement specific generational preserve backers with the because do unity other or of has been structures, regions from but with federalisation, a the affairs. generation. a country’s of internally, of the product challenge only reinforced Ukraine’s two also in of and Transcarpathian championed the country’s many of in territorial has multiple the the the in (the competing the most changes by Other exceptionally. indivisibility the divisions become status quo social east. sense including of people other broadly-understood ousted but Several unity, to east respects the the internal factors and Ukraine’s of The processes in divides, that of not countries media, perception less and the in this regional diverse unity. have leadership . including western In factors the have only the identity. pronounced, the it include country, of respect the divisions Claims has become and are bureaucracy Yanukovych The Ukraine) internal south transform by taken local meantime, identities, in remained have that aimed identity, the the a indivis the Crimea Europe tend it school which Maid patri of about is more place split con pro now uni sta not the or es as to at ------

5 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 6 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 • • observers. its and flict run beyond them. behind ciety people dressed could of assessment. this does not invalidate or A It sabotaging cow’s not preserve of a advantageous cisively within price protracted other is reports come just counter is quite really point its not and for clashes, in hostile adverse to from, its orbit, parts keeping Western split of likely the the face of influence to civil an to the view, the and western into government) Maidan, possibly of international disintegration. impending Russian that war it. Russian the interests that public two The a most throughout eastern is division price conflicting Ukrainian but involving annexation the interests. opinion, Federation, ‘division of there of is only would consequences. and those all highly However, of scenario parties armed the is Ukraine southern state, which groups, Russia be of no claims of unlikely. whole the Crimea and Ukraine’. political as action, since has to emergence would such in well that would Russia’s parts the are of been which in Ukrainian Ukraine, It a present as they between inspired programme have March war From would of be uncritical a aim Ukraine Ukraine number of are (going hardly to a Mos 2014 con is also and de pay the ad so by, to - - - - -

the changed internal The eralisation. any The Introduct between good, among ened terests The ian Maidan agreement ber never century ical visions have integration, the an account However, divisions. power country’s of and the depth internal about the have advocated rability fers anti-government state course independent 2013, way and a advocates wave present the warned worried chance and experienced those of in of the has of territorial the young political over in diversity, provoked young of those that the a the of Ukraine’s with

its changes or paper formal protests become protests who to the against time event many of Ukrainian current democracy even ion generation’s avoid views the people division protests Ukrainian and oppose any will as splits by and division of European a an movement people, that existence have that its the social political a reality are ’s the borders discuss in integrating result uncontrolled will the consequences on have both of state, has unfolded all and largely conflict divisions belief the state. of the also pro-Western decision then regions other gripped of Union, division sides pro-Western occurred as the has the and seeking country, other, the beyond a that obsolete. It continuing, show historical country, already state. than so element galvanised have will emergence on of disintegration. has far not Ukraine the is of of Ukraine. the deep the over even how A increasingly raised Ukraine, has also Ukraine. option since homeland to deepening grown generation They one independent policies arguing which sign origins shown the political briefly in this while since traditional transformed hand, the and there the fail Moreover, nearly the up about Some has diversity threat serve that is late existence that of Such form others to internal in discuss association and change. weak. are which a Ukraine’s strength take Ukraine. supreme quarter- Ukrain Novem the of the this histor the hardly claims of of views them even have link into into fed dis The has has du the in di of In of ------

7 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 8 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 the ternal way position sition civil division. ofsia Ukraine’s potential impact in unity of divisions which federalising of in the of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Russian today. ongoing the and In Federation country. intellectuals the protests the following political The and on final the approach the significance sections formation consequences part will the it will reflect of country’s of the delve a sense for propo on Rus into the in of - - - given had Ten Ukraine Ukraine I. while be of southern ethnic eastern be religious Those period). inter-war the during from seldom Ukraine’s analysis. further from excluded be it will respect, every almost tial here, Soviet separates the a cal late incorporated is the main result dominant Russians regarded difficult Rus, south, area swathes eighteenth never years di T the religion as at its he factorhe historical Union . ver mentioned and the which of the of is has end splits. current oblasts mostly most those later, before a decades the to same as also region southern in country of si existed of during into name in Ukrainian has Great Eastern ty ty century. the the important Rural Crimea the lands divisions live been time but and territorial the been today, eighteenth society was Large of countries rest as s of U World Steppe not of in the areas parts being Sovietisation. European associated which an Galicia, great was The separated Ukraine’s part only of and concerns Russian Donetsk independent are do historical the War of much in in second kra attached shape of in differs internal that not were century, the reflected the country. most Europe and cities, II civilizational with profess smaller communities i (Volhynia major from country. are east Basin, in ne’ the most Orthodox part of from The division, to 1944, atheists diversity, any more Ukraine for and line and s i state However, the in it, cities, important Greek of but any continental (for nternal nternal a state but, Ukraine’s those south In between as Russian/Soviet the diversified thousand being since substantial instance Christianity ethnic and the a space albeit especially Catholic as are entity exist Russian but Soviet annexed of in east, the people a 1991, dividing inhabited the it the special the only identity, one only ethnic Ukraine years, would that peninsula Belgium). than republic. substan country, and east religion histori Empire who groups that by in in in is could state case was line and and and it not the the the the the by do as in is is - -

9 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 10 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 mentality. area which ideology undermined dictate their pendent ial part litical peninsula national hundreds in Russians longer this Ukraine, The population. tion of the free Ukraine, not 2 1 lying Today then For census. 2001 the to According the Galicji Warsaw, pp. 61-62. 2013, spirit). identify kind (and internal fact of there own, territorial industrial more divisions many than is solutions. the and political Wschodniej and thereafter, as and are that and home of 1 The

attracted and information must country) well others with of thousands nationalist even the migrations, Ukrainians the even some further those the to in division. cities as civil low have and any However, present huge is Ukraine: more their larger i they regions Wołynia at divisions also were see intellectual confession civil and of east, been least of movements numbers eastern they children Tadeusz from also reflected this Yet numbers in regionally patriotic already activity the even the w Crimea a 30,000 were tended after displayed approach are considerable państwie the less * A. western and constitute in and standards treated of east Olszański, in subjected more seven towards of traditions, people with – job western southern migrants mixed to the if grandchildren, migrants live ukraińskim, expect a the is migrants deep oblasts disposed stronger elements as decades largely in were Soviet Kresy a families. proportion the aspects typical the to substantial Ukraine, Ukraine. ideological the from and end Sovietisation from willing (as cities zachodnie. obsolete. industry of Prace OSW Prace entrepreneur from government towards of ‘infected’ of of well of the more Migrants Communist are the the of the the Sovietism There of Belarus, to western western as propor and present west under people or Miejsce Soviet Soviet , act Many in inde Kyiv, nr less po the the are for on 43, to of of - - - - - 2

Atheists subjects. other for the of instruction language the been has ian the country Catholic portion in of language naturally In for centuries. Ukraine sian 4 3 coming rural the predominant migrated dustrial effectively habitants an entire for sia industrial grants and For

Ukrainians school, all Ukraine. Surzhyk op. cit op. discernible pp. 10-12. 2012, independent and

large Soviet south grandchildren, and regions areas more country. from ., pp. 12-13. other of from (the communities and centres

in is numbers surzhyk as weaker to and hail the Union, An centres interrupted a information of the other rule. well way religiously metropolia the the in of attempt Soviet urban the eastern have from cities Finally, Ukraine, state, the See of , in peninsula. as western i.e. 4 parts than east

mixing in albeit 3 of Tadeusz the learnt droves

western places whose republics). populations at Russia); in particular, are the see intellectuals Ukraine, (however, a by those history of all central indifferent of new elements people Tadeusz in also the city oblasts the the A. the regions throughout among ties perspective’, Kyiv’s different Olszański, and of and former Ukrainian present last Greek has of Ukraine). families That with and speak of throughout Ukrainian A. Ukraine, are central for who war, been Ukrainian of the people demographic and Olszański, surzhyk Catholic Soviet a is Ukraine Ukraine, ‘The home in proportions: decisive migrated Ukrainian 500,000 OSW Studies OSW because, and Ukraine an entrepreneurs who cities language The language oblasts, account (and attractive Union,

and to the is is Ukraine, younger ‘The church have as everywhere also millions the and majority, Russian, not city’s Ukrainians to (as as a issue continuity

and language as issue for most and their been homeland the spoken the the the Ukrainian well well is destination a in current generation Russian and without 40, Soviet large literature cities history currently capital Ukraine from of common children living Ukrain as as issue Warsaw immi Greek in in Rus Rus pro who was and the the the are any in in …’, in in of of in is ------

11 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 12 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 losing However, links torical-regional Ukraine based All there. areas ral the cal crises. political during It also unity, this country’s between in importance remains does Kyiv), in the although the not diversity territorial the and 1940s, splits a mean convenient Orthodox (while individual it still have remains that poses aspect holds not been Ukraine less Christianity, object present-day disappearing a of considerable less major and its and is of internal less becoming internal manipulation, conspicuous. of introduced divisions altogether), a influence divisions threat policy less and to diversified. As in challenge. especially in its has western a and the the result, politi been his the ru - - -

5 ual years extremes drastic of entities years: deep In II. aging which The felt Lutsk. in and were also and of Ukraine all fected trial has than ployees have their numbered something 1991. state. or ed models education the Cf. Ukraine, social later research.eu/upload/publikacja_plik/4931074_SA%20296last.pdf States’ to replacement country’s replaced emergence T the centres This manifested attitudes Anders education and the Ukraine in he factorhe the the and more in (offices, no Analysis and Studies , CASE do present a classes of fact means certain significant have vast social the unquestioned. around not wealth readily as Aslund, of typical the that population. within in public towards majority remember been eastern of after public day, of and divide, themselves the that relative period). the ‘Comparative Ukraine and the 7 visible 5 of s of U other the million were groups. 1991 sector, its splits its second, services command poverty the wage Ukraine of and current main citizens Adult (i.e. Those homogeneity people particularly any social post-communist Those second has have kra lasting the in hired in It Oligarchy: generational those force reality were and delays also Ukrainian been 2013, phenomena, generational and borders 296, disparities economy who were among emerged half i workers ne’ enterprises), many behind born has hidden), Warsaw in an accounting started of other of employees Russia, severe new un s new rural of led independent salary is the them in months with nationals the their over

split states, the (which, 2005. (in to the than nineteenth Ukraine related and divide. in school areas, Soviet the who Soviet payments present market years is the the existing with h t t p : / / w w w . c a s e - for openly of the two directly or emergence for great state-owned and i who but in have to last over The even ty state a society, Ukrainian 1984–1995) times, new, example, the that

economy plurality protests, the century they dispar started reality, twenty former indus to 15% better many United relat grad since very year em the af in of of ------

13 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 14 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 as ing The titushkicalled hail, but 6 young upil, School identical. been cases have many in ing These (Anglicisation) thinned factor and regions, ly form. posed the west rative (but sack this fore state at for

least part concerns grounds, Titushki onstrations 2013. in Vadym the them even alpha also the literature way, modernisation the and is still organism. processes to They in according people education, integrity indeed of a nineteenth Ukrainian and anarchist) the out Titushko, Shevchenko for forming are thousand either learn schooling is and often not a belief the their the neither and the do term according too omega hooligans, of the have The only as linguistic rise of show persecute to who differences whereby the both less ‘western’, that 6 that elements all years) know. they reality only the is Ukraine tradition same language which processes century. as symbolic in been beat of read spirit Ukraine’s of ethnically educated such, a refers the he the recruited popular certain to national a things protesters. fought was developing journalist Shevchenko’s innovations west the all a Russian in and of to all uniform of The and between places young it, taking the Ukrainian young a the of peers, nor new by aversion does at foreign while culture Ukrainian for symbolic culture. them, poet-prophet, the Ukrainian Cossacks, the during The in and of independence Ukrainians unity. people not security programme, place in the from the Ukraine, same in term regions. the a tradition from poetry, an and have to Russian east very nation They east core from Even opposition in among comes areas these Ukrainian services age and the history, Uzhhorod of Ukraine enough similar has of working as study This ‘our have the and but if absorb has from westernisation within subjects, or, Ukraine and has understood no and some whom to country. demonstration everything’, are in more been always particular disrupt history of been Ukrainian geography the the way language. have sobornost’ class the the to the of also a name the heroic learn lies single often, Mari in treat those same a nar dem back Cos also The (for key be ex all so- in in of ------

and separation citizens eralisation and Great country’s many less events nificance These 1986. since of Ukraine symbols of the 9 8 7 middle-Dnieper mention secession and even is lower. of federalisation ularity hyryn, Kyiv Research Research holiest a Haidamaky state. Sich. Zaporizhian of the seat main the from Kaniv 2014. on 4March accessed html, home part were federalisation, Komentari kraiiny’, rozkol pro chist’ People sion a the just attention substantial breakdown Patriotic regions). are of in is of which also there. region). activities Kholodnyi is of 1% the the Chernobyl, in national the Kholodnyi attached centre the the carried Ukraine. the from by mostly of of city real

and country Chyhyryn resting the the Ukraine, in eastern integrated majority elements The of of and and War As site, the Ukraine: Ukraine. history the centre Zaporizhia, opposed out Yar and of people published symbolic 87 a in insurgents Saint place the (61–80% Yar located data by They (while result, is region and the its of was the Rejting a and Ukrainian that and Ukrainians to Sophia’s by forest in education, of 81% 8 unity. all learning its Razumkov Among focus the such version capital Taras and 550 Eastern of generation. only not the only respectively Khortytsia. the ‘organise’ heart of e, votes capital km range southern projects far 1918–1922, quoted Cathedral, 1917–1920 * Shevchenko, thinking They 2014. 3, , Issue of 8% regions: of from 7% the oppose the against, Insurgent from the of beats Centre near Galicia and of of of young Kyiv national http://glavcom.ua.articles/17966. country, (53 after research Bohdan are region the opposed the Ukrainians Chyhyryn, Kyiv, the 7 and and both erected Perhaps in in down on the independence depending reinforced Ivan inhabitants support who imagination December Kyiv, 63% finally latter generation, of Ukraine the Army federalisation Khmelnytsky’s which results the the history which Malyshko, was a respectively location thousand Kaniv one separation Dnieper a Khortytsia is also hideaway (UPA) their on back does 9 2013 has Crimea

neglected should around by the to born of of not and shows the of been

‘Mifotvor river) struggle years regions’ the Ukraine’s and the the and Donbas variant). receive opposed Cossack of young include is not (today pop of Chy also their part, divi fed two sig one that the the was ago. the far in ------

15 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 16 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 resisted brain-draining perceives The privileges. of and procedures, dependencies state, business system it and one and often linked pendent, apparatus indivisibility Kharkiv subsystem tures Strong state. the The 10 tendencies Ukraine, a fact Kharkiv, stronger is and that there capital. the to outflow their down slowed have in an more power. that bureaucratic continued hierarchic the of archaic and its the with inert never the regional of to and this years inhabitants at but and closed change refer way: Kharkiv government certainly Ukraine’s position in in state even most The Odessa, the group been process has the 1917–1934. of and the intellectual to existence by the structures bureaucracy Ukraine. has state, Kharkiv times system, before identifications strengthened involved broad elites mainly centralism eastern criminally attracting second retain interested in regions not and 10 also ). Kyiv It (unlike which during has All sense), 1991, is as in a also largest had in as developing and strong The an regions the elites and its in (it contributed governing (only a important is in characteristic a those large pathogenic). quickly ‘first in threat all, is consolidation break-up, is independence, Ukrainian stabilising city, its had uninterested which sense Transcarpathia) in the preserving to irrelevant this Kharkiv unity. capital’). have of was numbers a Ukraine the of source the Lviv, to decisive its transformed industrial has the existed local the been to capital, country also Any own Dnipropetrovsk capital effect bureaucracy On Its been the identity has established of of here the of of (mainly in the undermined for potential group say their patterns Ukraine’s as country’s status, and the for on members undermining of on status quo unfavourable other and have another an in that the (it a academic the the elites formal into larger the interests is Ukrainian autonomous in hand, in the still prosperity they unity most separatist or structure (the of affairs this an unity internal Donbas, enjoyed scale Donetsk) , reason: of nature common

by the which action struc centre, inde were state local part and way the the are SSR fact for has in of - -

11 tist of carpathia nority and Rusyn a new, objective. shared of tralism, this independent Cf. local local week.com/Society/100514 Oksana

aspirations is new e.g.: also identity). which patriotisms. self-governance, the

Mikheyeva), Donbas. tendency may seeing hierarchic from is become 11 or very A However, the Stagnation ambitions the has

So The Ukrainian Week development large, far centre an system in

and exception these fact there Period considering calls to have united of gain have is (interview for administration of been a ,

4 here: autonomy not the

growing a February the political the engendered gaining regions it regional with has scale

2014. opposition (although a concept a Donetsk to popularity. Hungarian

and http://ukrainian of elites become any the the of sociologist separa Trans around region, to fiction a more local cen mi But - ­ - - - 17 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 18 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 oblasts, intellectual with Maksym (but not Hrytsak). others many and Ukraine) western can an tionally two to the which those of known and One III. 15 14 13 12 sian’ and tions; guished of the state-building Ukrainians, Maksym Cf. 2004. Wrocław Ukrainy, Dwie Mykola Ryabchuk, Cf. Cf. attitude most experience Ukraine’s 2009. Warsaw Chruślińska, Iza rozmawia showSingleNews.do?chomu_shid_ne_z_maydanom&objectId=130066, 2013. Wrocław 2014. on 10 January cessed west

principal also Ukraines: ideologically one, T often the a Ukraiński who (2) Ukraina. he d he can bitter intellectual of and and regards historian be foreign writer which Vikhrov, have hears the of Vikhrov, also found elites calling is socially internal Donbas summary superiority, contemporary Przewodnik the civil efforts palimpsest. eastern cour be fiercely is “non-Ukrainians” and the in belongs towards ‘(pro-)Western’ a in applied of ‘Chomu a them and kind who Ukraine “easterners” Lviv-based backward’ the in journalist the by divisions, s part of e of U ‘two criticised national particular. Ukraine applies Oksana of Creoles writings Krytyki if middle shid in the to the no not of exponent Eastern considerable (and attitudes ne man’s people the outright Zabużko post-colonial journalist, inhabitants and Oksana Politycznej. z instead. sentiments, as: and generation, Ryabchuk’s one, of beyond) Maidanom’, who country 15

(1) land, Zabuzhko who According Europe, Russia. of of which “degenerate w kra are of the disdain, this Zabuzhko, rozmowie 12 the an denies parts Ukraine’s incapable Z that has eastern the of http://zaxid.net/homer/ historically, Mykola object theory. i Jarosławem Yaroslav or concepts. theory and western ne Donbas right (who recently there to any towards of the s z the his the Izą ’ cattle” of and 14 most nobler He Ryabchuk

of to comes to inhabitants nation are Chruślińską, ‘(pro-)Rus are Ukrainian Kyiv Hrytsak, diagnosis, or becoming However, the Hrycakiem southern be is come the socially distin Odessa unable among a in called study emo well- elite, from and ‘na fact

up ac is 13 - - - - -

those tion it compatriots 16 involved the “true” tional’ programmes, talgia vis-à-vis ofrest Ukraine who involved This attitude hardly as However, “gangrenethe of Ukraine”, etc. east (…) er ties. too ence regions tion i.e. harder sense they Kostyantyn foment the they 2014. on 10 February accessed articles/2014/02-6-7009698/view_print/, Donbas, deeply political important of of an of As did areneeded. type regions statement of of identity Ukraine. the two the contributes

to live enemy, a vis-à-vis entered of the pride in in its result, it find Soviet of Soviet competing unity the the today) the or is in disintegration, departing forces Levin, identity to the true the in narrative, the of aims struggle rather ‘westerners’ all-Ukrainian

Vikhrov develop the by only No politics state, of the the young in “rocket do east that ‘Dvadtsyatimilyonna have the to the rest separate and nature, east devote inhabitants “some building national than discourse to and famous generation. regions”. the while country for an generation for of not goes objectives which survive capital”, and Ukraine, south aversion the an because years of as (not a and identity the [political] on great the the writer ally” identity advocates country’s the leaves and among to has in “western” only too of made south, local meaning Under country’s say of has any deal and it 16 to but “the provintsia’, nation, only closely

Vasyl is does little the the the projects. that inhabitants been form every as being process. points of Ukrainian freedom, and Union’s of the provoked protest ‘Banderites’ intellectuals) representatives not attention room Shklar Ukrainians Dnipropetrovsk, the the such linked adopting other unity, so influence effort born www.pravda.com.ua/ lead to interests “‘pro-Ukrainian’ is The And for furnace-room”, such reflections movements (3) the that than to have the here: but intellectuals to local to disparaging to ignorant even the sense an from the Donbas examples make the people (wherev of nor the to become of identi ‘all-na the forma school of exist ques those their their nos does Lviv that was the the are old in in of is ------19 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 20 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 of tive only or tity state. of the unity a even consolidation eastern and entity Kyiv, the to identity. local exploit and of patriotisms, the the the In Ukrainian ‘school’ practice, west’s disdain which version then, Orthodox do it in of does not an state Church effort not pose and stand to a national has threat build in been the a to iden posi way the the - - social specialists did the expectedly ganisations 20 19 18 17 The I Ukraine, started mersed ten terests numerous various students Yet demographic. this from Kyiv hailed in protesters joined also the the No V. According Yuri Aleks 414 http://dif.org.ua/ua/jfjeifjoejfowjervojriohvj.htm, of should for of counted cording 2014. 4, issue Nedeli, Zerkalo vlasti”, zka 2014. on 10 January accessed Specialists with not

held

Association national first as (and beyond) U those other

2014. January on 14 ­298/view_priont/, accessed detailed demonstrations. protests: n remember to Butusov, university joining

Kyiv’s in Lisitsa, regions

negative

demonstrations i be

during Donetsk be permanently ty and d and ty to for age ‘digital

with veterans remembered, large from to sociological with linked data 34% capital and

research ‘Lubov “‘Afgantsy Independence the the university on Agreement the university of is education numbers attitudes the

profession Soviet and modernity’. available the original with the participants

night See of i of

present central fermery’,

group from

research Crimea i though, the Kyiv

v protests, http://dif.org.ua/ua/jfjeifjoejfowjervojriohvj.htm, Maidana’: Ukraine, the

against isi education (graduates of on 19 early to demographics educations, war ‘on group , on country’s Maidan, with 29/30 as the and on

politics

that www.epravda.com.ua/columns/204/01/13/

from included the permanent Square The January well in make-up

were Yanukovych’s

trebovaniye s i after southern people Maidan, 17 the of accounted November Afghanistan who December first and n the M n the students as and

in 30 pro-Western EU mainly 2014, etc. became 18 farmers started those believed

November response of radical duty’ ), from but politicians, in the

members These oblasts, for workers odno 2013,

only accessed still November in protests 2013. and 38% students joining other

decision the a 20 organisations (from the their – 7% people

studying) 2013, ; were i polnaya and to specialists in dan Maidan, These of accounted course, workers

on of the at the Euromaidan, backgrounds

and short, those students representatives personal

that 10.01.2014. aged throughout Cossack people

and not beating 2013 protest. perezagru were included were gathering and stage. who 15–29

people to young in for 10%. were from

those who sign that 59%. un im in

14% or See Ac of ac of It - - - - - ­­ - - -

21 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 22 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 spoke ple representing 21 to ity tivists In Tatars. by represented Crimean been only has Crimea if and the tionalists cia new quality. of this shorthand in illustration asymbolic is though integrate which particularly This above all. of nationhood tradition or perhaps into the south (who Belarus, Dnipropetrovsk, first as one haps their The just situations a together. prayers the in part took per, cussion Ukraine the or of from UPA, supreme community person is they was, expelling significance the Maidan, different into but from one present have they not all and the of the it country. to have by are the slogan, to is this regions openly the include to been audible, nationalist different the of say country and important only community, protest not tradition die aspect languages Donbas east revolutionary moderated of chapels way, that the conspicuous that even on the a is Nobody draw all have religious and action of hence second changing: Hrushevsky the more a regions, to third inhabitants of the or professional losing for ideology of the note on been sobornost’ earlier and Kharkiv. protests the was prayer Ukrainian there deeply, the their the element: south a that a professed Nation, present much tension, Ukrainian the generations in first-generation traditions nationalist they were representatives divisions in is has most the first have Street , of The beyond by i.e. the church soldier of established. advocated statehood Maidan. become Ukraine. including on understood in the Maidan the their aim been extreme different was the the the from of services are unity and voices slogans and of Stepan history the scope strength. Maidan, an of the disappearing. diversities However, social has The western A immigrant an and various separating the least and Armenian demands: religions. more was protesters of of in Iraq been Bandera of and fact the east nationhood, radicals indivisibil strata, celebrated civil numerous, independent detailed even confessions However, present veteran), symbols Ukraine that reduced and the within 21 terms if from from Gali

even Peo who and Per is na the the are - dis ac pa on to ------

ball 22 The small Donetsk. fended for carried against gions, the though of the provinces limit abuse Cherkasy But even that. no-one organise to was there Donetsk, and an part further The regions. other the demand western tions tion people the romaidan, ferences Holos Ukrainy kulakami’, iz ‘Stabilnist’ Kushch, Lina Cf. the element them, central city backlash in clubs rebellion scope of buildings the in of group Afghan either. that the numbering against banners they east the an mayor autonomy, Ukraine the in protests In too, and of to leaders). which of which, government, the allegedly regions same mid-January local one Ukraine the that were It from the splitting war in Sumy were was pre-existing has the looked, with capital the from authorities, to Donetsk, concerned gathered protest by who concerned only the but been titushki Even were at Kyiv the undertaken regions (except the impending slogans the the rather the authorities, were should several the attempts they one if way, groups also and campaign helm very the

country the in by weaker potentials element the for called has bring did a but backed about joined about the protesters radical be way miners, start, of hundred the of entire not ‘invasion not not by at seen the Donetsk ultras this most was on the to the ones occupying in certain transcended raise poorly the against of and been protest protests fans to for late as country. protests an pensioners indivisibility out can demands of renounced defend from strong, from a while secessionist protest. all-Ukrainian (the the a major by (‘ultras’) Euromaidan of organised be other links rebellion against the the Crimea) all activists from state explained initial it and 2014. January , 28 public The and mistake is the the question, of While with threats. Right and true allegiance the the the of administra demonstra of in the major decision borders slogans of groups buildings Shakhtar appeared Ukraine; Kyiv from veterans stronger Kyiv Kharkiv start, was that protest, in Sector’, glaring the by on 22 Lviv, even foot

The and dif Eu the the the de re or in to to of of ------

23 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 24 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 ment institutions tion ors, ers Unlike homeland. participants, letariat, of ities). they porters give on 23 the rule for ‘anti-Maidan’ selves who suppressing

time. at that used not was name This two the money. or case. and in of support way agreed and Presently, teachers), to Kyiv groups Kyiv in Viktor into young who actions Therefore, 2004, (for support

Apparently also Maidan massive (often the on

closer do expressed in a Yanukovych, of people the

a enjoyed potential the Donetsk time, which not who people: ceasefire; from women Party anti-Maidans ties even and they demonstrations are from naturally) the they the the with spontaneously, 23 officials backed carrying of for was try prefer authorities approaching the local near-open Regions the can or civil to Russia a maybe working manifestation hostilities deny control. the authorities to and to are activity out avoid decided the are protest. of made are that employees they the backing support. even class retirement, But superior still unconvinced in risks, orders they between up know in the not (the Shortly willing if or of almost of this are with ‘Eurasian’ mobilise the and the At of Orange the of that interest way, participating that public-sector their clubs lumpen beliefs office limit city to exclusively afterwards encourage this that back time they Revolu author its superi had of them camp. work is those of sup pro not the the the are its to ------

In ‘Sovietness’. mean to taken However, ble the of the of tion. which units. so ny, independence has government eration The V. with the acter bility thought, Mykhailo concepts. and but older to it back discussions reasons, refers People’s state were 1921, ture

much a Ukraine, 1991 socialist project as early Ukrainian been federal idea and i and T the the Ukrainian of One both It (which a of he i he contributed Vyacheslav the replacement returned was the maintaining Republic borders Ukrainian introduced of 1990s, and of the Drahomanov, advocates was WUPR), transforming dea of federal of dea put state a creation nature t the powers project visionary Ukraine’s formed s state. struggle never gn si would forward present-day state. of with is only Chornovil, the to of commonly although People’s of into or of However, of (or put the federal the a new have i historical Yet the a because a f even project of greatest the federation rather federal the public icance federal forward) Soviet Ukraine UPR arbitrarily during the force solved founding Republic idea autonomy consequences initially relations the and Ukrainians what misunderstood, postulate, which, debate state state it during lands, system historian of leader many is the proved from met the with reforming at he such formally was delineated father it had for independence national-democratic and with with to the apparently did a on ion of of of the because specific unitary established the as impossible it the government the Mykhailo was the recent not of of universal been the Yugoslavia Western new this country’s award Ukrainian becoming the People’s rule and one ‘new’ borders current implemented an events. state is organisation administrative meant out ‘federation’ of implementa that of war Hrushevsky to as Russia. opposition. the Movement Ukrainian broad into for the or problems. a of reconcile a The political political the was unitary in Germa federa factors oblasts the

possi char a 1917– self- idea idea fed The not fu in of is ------

25 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 26 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 regions The siasm lead no councils, Revolution, Federalism sively centralised. Ukraine was and (at The Chechnya. and of that the raneous by in vych (president the or of understood ing recognition ernisation’ Ukraine, tion with cracy’s a some the specific even Severodonetsk. that independence champions decomposition emergence the to clear solved time. councils of supporters. the for a kind a ambition Crimean into break-up regions. time granting need was disintegration South-Eastern in ambition mostly the Several – concept by re-emerged or, of a clearly order of the governor established congress of the to idea introducing Transnistria Crimea’s

as of of Russian ensure people’s The to Those oblast’s from independence of some new distinction movement to factors broader of in to of Most keep enough, Ukraine protect congress the how eastern break quasi-states – southern of as said, fears that autonomy), Ukrainian of county as Federation. dual declaration delegates not of discouraged delegates an to a the powers much and away if hierarchic the those this and idea organise feared ‘fascistisation’ only coincided between Ukraine Soviet formulated at Yugoslav feared state Abkhazia, head). and all) the part in power from as who Autonomous in to (soviets). from but that late incorporation system There would a remained of eastern the of the such the that unitary itself, the system As Ukraine), with also autonomy 2004. attended allowing as the federation, oblast, a former new local a was demand possible but two federalisation experiments, lead under of one country result, the The and Ukraine, During state party of state manageable also also self-government options Republic city to that central administration the USSR, federalisation, latter on were (underpinned Yushchenko’s of the for to independent developed of little (despite and committees top and from contempo its the was itself, Tatarstan the secession was Yanuko not problem was eastern bureau of Orange includ finally, county within enthu would exces ‘west crea after that, only held and not the at - - - ­ - - - -

autonomous also a comparable from of pirations territorial three bly transformed and sible cused porters, The would needed be implement to that it. means gether but Russian rather moters thing However, again. acapital Kharkiv tween rule. After centre). external some other of became and ern region those the unstable, merely after opponents hosting Ukraine. be in Kharkiv However, regions that the Yushchenko Donetsk the than the unstable, of Federation. the who the denounced inhabited Kushnaryov the altogether initiators what integrity”. two they inhabitants a case being the party with organised republic, Ukraine slogan, idea, even do Since to capitals. of Basin, have was that lion’s of as not Dnipropetrovsk the that the an with of came by the of For there then, it (presumably possible and share concept in In project, a having independent died share into main rather nearly as which the proposed Yevhen of of single common The this a to no-one is separatist, reasonable Odessa, the in a calls Severodonetsk economic no objective power, of dualist South-Eastern way 2007, orchestrated than in a especially was would region, Autonomous its ‘south-eastern’ Kushnaryov, third for the republic. thought is they economic and deliberately). Donetsk the not the state their calls country autonomy case span and may division of or Party representing discredited to entire a the among other or Odessa, for dependence political of about after well “an congress Granting one-third and a Republic potential country’s of Crimea Republic one and autonomy republic eastern attack of identity Regions interests; have would Yushchenko their Kharkiv, Yet the of prerogatives made having autonomist project the was the been methods the was autonomy on itself of would victory, on and of population within sometimes main once to it Ukraine’s subsided, intention for interests Ukraine, the Kyiv Crimea, to a bind inevita not and either, south would status a make again pro have sup only new fea and the the be as ac to (or to ------27 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 28 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 words, gration (without, or he some re-emerge 29 28 27 26 25 24 Some including ministration. After level. regional even at the Administration President the discourse ministration in ject ber of ering Cf. 2014. on 10 February accessed http://www.kommersant.ua/doc/2400532, Cf. www.pravda.com.ua/news/2013/12/6/7005273/, It Cf. 2014. on 10 February accessed www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/10/7013349, Ukraine a even 2014. January on 31 accessed tion cating 2014. on 5February accessed lenta.ru/articles/2014/02/04/medvedchu/, veneer government the reform’, OSW government of local spoke main of 2013, way is

e.g. introduction it members e.g. Russian the the on worth

by to the would

[http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/kolesnichenko/52ea62deca835/, the of which Viktor the about Viktor lobbyist however, be outbreak federalisation Putin’s in Andriy Ukraine’s in was decentralisation bureaucratic only problems noting the a Mykhailo 28 Donetsk, in

politicians deliberate

come Medvedchuk, a Others, Ukraine, of suggested federalisation under only of way Medvedchuk, fait close Shyshatski, for the that local identifying of

leading associated accompli”, from). possible of Moscow’s ruling mass federalisation centralism including self-government, but Leonid aide Dobkin, see preventing of Ukraine’s and also that Tadeusz always Ukraine Eta 25 Sergei protests

Russophile, He camp with variant controlled expressed Kuchma igra the as 2013. February 12 102, issue commentary, it 24 a where interests, supported at and was had the former a modernisation Iwański, the on the slishkom head does way Glazyev. spoke the returned on

in organisation the backed, been head regional as of the not who several disintegration it of out decentralisation! November way. similar Vadym head margins accessed may Piotr out said of necessarily the dorogo threat federalisation introduced 27 of was

level.

well Kharkiv’s with On in against As efforts Żochowski, of Donetsk the that occasions of Kolesnichenko. almost on views, considered obkhoditsia, the be early the of For of regional ongoing new 6 2013, “the limited such stall December have political more Presidential other federalism, into of as

force, oblast oblast including the break-up due ‘Under the to Ukraine 29 (consid later disinte Decem and informa to ) public crisis, involve hand, but to http:// dupli same to sub 2013. local life, and ad lack ad on the be at 26 ------

- -

and plan. accused Hrytsak the or considers south, out state).come aseparate an Notable the politician lution ent 34 33 32 31 30 This the were by rebuilt that pean present crisis. the during Piotr Taras http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/kyrylenko/52eb9cfca4eb0/view_ Volodymyr www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/12/7013658, the 2014. January on 31 print/, accessed 2014. on 6February accessed strany’, vala www.from-ua.com/adds/print.php?politics/b4239338fc1dc, 2014. January in unexpectedly

same a on impetus Kremlin”, the thus time 31 parties, Russian merely any

for former Vyacheslav fully Russia, along Jendroszczyk, against calls Chornovil, the spoke time Ukraine, around, indirectly the of case controlled Lytvyn, Our of Presidential www.from-ua.com/adds/pront.php?politics/dc14da87628ad, the for said 32 “political federal plan admitted and

criticism of etc. realistic, this federalism, strong Ukraine, lines a that however, ‘Mene Kyrylenko, went to the ‘Postanovka ‘To Russian Taras background Yanukovych system split 33 Rosja “an of by west,

technologies”, that realno reaction as deepened 30 “unitary political Moscow, Administration Chornovil order then Ukraine far rozdaje the “plan it while

which of speaker voprosa as would nudyt’ the federalisation government the for to on was karty’, for himself, decentralisation”. project leader posing the say the into Party would federalisation the vid o (son not a Volodymyr the federalizatsyi and that centre, impression break-up Rzeczpospolita part zayav three be calm of of of accessed a was chief be Ukraine Klyuyev possible of threat Vyacheslav, one to Regions), of opozytsiynykh “pushed discourse implementing parts indirectly be opinion its at Andriy of of Lytvyn on an nesyot opponents, hand. had to that , the Ukraine”, 13 to 24 34 was needed (the adequate accessed the February

The who January carry out” come expressed pro-Euro ugrozu a provoked carrying Klyuyev, a who Yaroslav country, east depend serious,

former former in lideriv’, to to it from on 2014. 2014. said this fact and and and raz out be so be 24 - - - - -

29 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 30 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 been become son impede tion a vented of Ukraine. sovereignty the to president 35 opponents camp. haps The bureaucracy. i.e. the of Ukraine, decentralisation the to posed new again: reforming way, 2014. on 10 February accessed www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/10/7013291, nationwide levelled authors of constitution also the intended any The the in any the possibility to Moscow Leonid reference Ukraine’s predictable, of ‘protest ‘governor disrupt at resolution of federalisation front the by this the will Kuchma president or camp’, any of of to narrative, internal authors of in be seriously federalisation opposition of violent agreement Little Russophile decried the including also and will current of 35 system Russia’,

and denounced which the the discussing be as against between at allegations plan backed an circles the in of crisis etc., times may act the open government for could Yanukovych, of the federalism course in by the indeed and federalisation. even treason. accusations Kyiv, the that possible president the presumably hysterical of main have his intended emergence works was In as aim options force and been this, and a blocked of In was threat on reac trea have

per that it this op the the in to to of of - - - - -

the 37 36 rative It V the parade’), tablished jects different: If for Russia. disaster would apolitical be area former Soviet And cessity Union tenuous as recognising to is sphere references the West its Russia mitigating, view, will whole The 1991. since threat this used repeatedly has Russia I. is one beyond one a faith. little has Brussels order democratic whose in of states vision is own Transnistrian Ukrainian post-Soviet result a not F an allowing of would mainly about widespread rom M looks EU’s of part was of indication also of international point put because transforming Ukraine at before influence. it any of resistance falling to becoming the the understands a an would at not the a because time Moscow’s of UN-mandated long doubt rational state end European o impending states that be division December view those s while and belief apart cow’ war be to a of to the 36 in This favourable recognise dependent ), Russian law, the deep difficult is Crimean are Union the developments order arguments, and but backing at (all that perfectly of s po Union’s that view objective well-established and the country disintegration 1991 instability a also an the will peacekeepers Russia to sovereign Catalonia’s influence Ukraine’s international same today i the does separatisms nt of v nt during keep post-Soviet be outcome taking on of and rational) even international of into a the Moscow not is time to the division at Russia’s took not and less the or measures imagine secession a state, least in seem association USA’s loose from Scotland’s eliminating, of i willing only that place ew so-called disorientation. to and is quasi-states in Ukraine peace and part unless policy to of be to the federation Moscow’s distrust country, promoting full-fledged Western while be to Ukraine the subordinate situation deployed of to of early right intervention. recognise justified. Abkhazia with de facto (which other ‘sovereignty it it and the within or to happened of 1990s contrary were point secession the (which leading powers at Russia. the is on Soviet a in Today the

from least sub nar split also ne The the the the are EU es its di or of 37 - - - - -

31 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 32 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 to it to to it assess. to would difficult stage be which international fiction of economy. Ukrainian Moreover, act. to Russia at by – centrifugal eralisation) into Transcarpathia, hostile Yet new states. split into several phobia. any what

would would remain home, the permit the a several hypothetical potential Russian that community to large As not and have

This Russia one outside economy, if a the tendencies this be parts numbers Russia result would part would to Federation. possible annexation rump where would and

shoulder of (even of western-Ukrainian of

of it. backed encourage sections would impose it Ukrainian nations,

the of This (towards to it render to Ukrainians if holds join split, Russia “federalise”

the would that of intensively the a of part very the entailing advocates it responsibility which major break-up Russia went decentralisation state difficult

would only Customs of serious believe. it compete sway.

was no be state Ukraine would promote would losses also

of of possible further for still burden Union, such the If would On have Moscow for also Ukraine not with for a in Ukrainian so-called the projects separate

or the if than to be such Russia and on lose

be Ukraine Russia’s other separatism) sustain recognised crumbling the to decisively the was access real a combat way within budget Russo on hand, entity other state,

split own was fed the the as to - -

38 Crimea, V There sentiments ulation insula Crimean The up for Ukraine’s indivisibility. and were independence standing was crisis, arose The in Verkhovna Rada former to Crimea, my to mayor most (with remaining navy On public Crimea. in the with popular very portant; Sevastopol II. the the Ukraine, istration self-governments. local have hand, other on the tricts, the to objectives Crimean only A base, of were prevent in backing Party Russian has and other in set spec (both the and with the the Tatars because a (the the remained of also within after and though: political places of is elites hand Autonomous stopping demands, Russians elites its an inhabitants equivalent the i were Regions) language. from

al ca al calls the imprudently on strong it import only it in of where the the collapsed, frozen backed different the was Sevastopol, for rally, peaceful Russia), Crimea city eastern other, Ukrainian e: C se: and of championed main controlling the regional part of However, they in a Republic removed ethnic and western governor) the Ukrainians) city Ukraine wanted repealed poses r than demands of gained in the Ukrainian were i demanded Yanukovych to Ukraine mea which recent identity, conflict state), potential join in a the managed Ukrainian the of Ukrainian appointed displayed, separate by to the new a Crimea Russia, is second concerned days govern peninsula’s law Russophile on and Euromaidans and still between business pro-Russian justification self-rule by the granting for (February by camp that problem. the primarily a state and a aspect cultural themselves proclaimed the one head social move Crimean deeper aspiration the president. (with in in organisations economy. symbols hand for of broad is the Sevastopol. that Slavic state discontent If elsewhere 2014), separatist when models the a more the its Russian autono and present would Tatars (while admin rights a Its city. links from pop pen new was this The im the the - dis to 38 - - - - -

33 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 34 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 of the not poration joining The the be 41 40 39 Russia, state. in community this involved. been who Russia havefrom also undoubtedly Should new state. the majority,Russian destabilising Russia. to would hostile be within of become Cf. When The Crimea. the the oblast, endum. Shortly 17% ple 2014. February on 28 accessed chca-obcej-wladzy-na-polwyspie.html, http://www.rp.pl/artykul/40,1090435-Dzemilew--Tatarzy-krymscy-nie- ua.articles/17966.html, region hardly Crimea advocates. its than numerous more still are of separatism opponents the ity dividual highly maintain Ukrainian views is political of the in Such population that respectively Razumkov a Russian Crimea separatist Russia who a short this the in present and of

statement account afterwards Crimean-Tatar popular administrative of In the the Crimea demands southern of text are 13% such the slogans its meaning time, Tatar are officials Crimean become beyond Federation would calls Centre more was for present political would of a by marginal, in Russia around case would and is finished, independent region community Mustafa demanding favour Sevastopol Crimea, much powerful assumed would

research accessed be part and units would it Tatars level national annexed definitely is elite a increase would higher by a third oligarchs of almost is the Dzhemilev, it merger and trigger

in quoted of not adding on Russia, can demand of which and situation the

of autonomy. back would in 4.03.2014). the even available, match independence be Crimea, Crimea. state, against Crimea the study, certain with the inferred more above peninsula a the now a officials total in a without violent account that large potential in 41 another neither senior and independence

than such the

or efficient, shows but A 40 Crimea rising population influencing that that

For breakdown the separatist The at since following elsewhere new and moves and Crimean reaction although least oblast, the Russia, those that for new for the main towards was for well-organised the circumstances oligarchs around republic would only (http://glavcom. Crimea of interests a state very tendencies irredentism

of while inhabitants ‘prompters’ of a bi-national in the Tatar 39 the reason the the sham

their

12% data from the unstable. southern 20–25% popular replace should 81% affairs 12–15% incor region, of

leader, could or for from refer home peo nor the and for

are its in of - - - - -

While C regions the the of made the those The There Federation. sabotage Russian for the political instrument a political in The low. very is Ukraine an up. throughout tween eralisation, demanding flict That, tween social The Federation. Russian interests ing onclu clash Sevastopol impending Crimea toppling internal It exploited eastern fact events Russian about however, could groups. attempts developments. is this the the between separatist that no and of ruling on si people paper preserving of develops, in reason only change. is of the all unity and the authorities regional recent in Furthermore, openly the not split the is at the country. the two subject s disintegrate southern camp hardly was gaining political and the of Yanukovych demands to of players Splitting political months Ukraine. parts believe called the the being However, objective divisions, the the and conceivable, of and country The likelihood broader conflict, Ukraine’s state of status qu regions the in written, for such were have conflict that the the as armed Despite claims the activist-minded government the of apparatus, a regardless the nation. country, a Ukraine strengthened, have raised; result either current autonomy, war and of city o federalisation/division the recent as diverts forces of that or the Ukraine mainly have the would to the bringing of Ukrainian It side. in existence even have become faces conflict, has a conflict and of Crimea have conflict – secession protracted served attention and a Instead, run been how been accepted. parts development in been a not not actively threat the the about part counter of at including conflict as the a the undermined, between has a of propaganda made inhabitants form deep hand conflict a away of it the of local civil means change situation of not is In eastern Russia. backed break- nation social, of to a is about led is some from been that war. elite con fed two the be the be be of to – - - - - -

35 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 36 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014 should reflections 42 heat. revolutionary the foundbe or implemented amidst of prerogatives, op. cit op. P. T. Żochowski, see Iwański, For information, more the challenges introduce on instead reforming facing genuine of the Ukraine. Ukraine’s regional present 42

However, system illusory self-governance T adeu of self-rule. no government, sz A solution . . O with l This szań to which is broad it s one can k i 37 POINT OF VIEW 03/2014